The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-08-04
A Great Constitutional Question
Reopened.
From the New York Herald.

| h0Op6u6Q.
From the New York Herald
| The death of Justice Woods, of tn,
United States supreme court, reopens on,
of the most important constitutions
questions passed upon by that tribuna
since the war.
In the series of Virginia bond cases, de.
cided in April, 1885, the court held tina
the Malone Riddleberger read uster" leg
islatlon of 1882 and 1884, by which Vir
ginia refused to honor its bond coupons
was a violation of that clause of the fed
eral cor stitution which forblds state tC
impair the obligation of its contracts
and that in spite of such legislation the
state was bound to receive the coupons in
payment of taxes and debts due the com
monwealth. Had the court stopped there
Virginia might have felt little concern al
the decision. 1t might have said to its
creditors: Eyes, the state is legally bound
to meet its obligations, but il doesn't pro-
| pose to do SO. The supreme court says
| the state must receive its cou lons in pay
ment of taxes end other dues, but the
state refuses to receive them. Now, what
are you going 10 doabout it.
But the supreme court did not stop
there. 1t went a loug way further. 1t
held that if the tax collector refused to re-
ceive the coupons and then levied upon
the property Of the tax payer, the latter
might sue the former for tresspass or
damages. The court further held that
the tax-cOllector might be restrained By
injunction from levying ON the property
of tax payer who had rendered the
amount of his taxes in coupons. Now.
mark the effect OF this decision. The
state repudiates lis bonds. The holder
offers the coupons in payment of taxes.
The state refuses to accept them. 1t tnsn
proceeds to force payment in money. The
federal courts step in and protects the
taxpayer. They stop the state from en-
forcing money payment. What is the
result! The state must eli her receive its
repudiated bonds or it must receive
nothing. 1t must meet its obligations or
forfeit its revenues.
That was a staggering blow to repudia-
ton, not only in Virginia, but in every
other state. 1t was decree from the
highest court in the land that Virginia and
every other state is not only legally bound
to pay its debts repudiaied in violation of
law, but can be made to pay them. 1t put
every state in the union in the power Of
the federal courts with respect to its tnau-
cial obligations. II recognized II the ma
tionai judiciary authority to enforce COZ
tracts between state aud its creditors: to
coerce state into the fulfIlment OF its
contract and the payment of its indebted |
ness. Obviously that was a marked irrosd !
into the domain of state sovereignty
signal curtailment OF state sovereignty |
and enlargement of federal sovereignty.
And this ives done for the first time two |
years ago. The important principle J
affirmed by the supreme court in 1855 was |
then affirmed for the first time.
Was it affirmed without opposition or
dissent: By no means. The defense of |
Virginia was that an injunction or damage
suit by An individual against a state officer
s suit against the state, and that every
tate is exempt from such litigation by
he eleventh amendment of the federal
constitution. This view was taken by a
minority of the supreme court justices.
n an elaborate dissenting opinion, written
" Justice Bradley, it was maintained
hat
state officers have no power but what the state
ives them. They oct for and in behalf of the
tate and In no other way. To sue them Their fore,
ecsuse they Will not receive the coupons in pay
nent OF taxes, ts Nrtusly to sue the state. The
Thole object IL 10 cOerce the state. IL lie idle say
hat the proceeding Is only against the officers.
Justice Bradley then used this forcible .
angusge:
These suits are an attempt to coerce state by
1dicial proceedings. They are that and nothing ,
lse. IL i useless 70 attempt TO deceive ourselves
y an sdrOit use OF words or by & train Of nets
hyscal reasoning. We cannot in that way change
he nature Of thiugs. ,
This is the first time, we belleye since the !
leyenth amendment WAS adopted, In which state ,
as been cOerced hy Judicial proceedings al the suit
( individuals ia the federal courts That this il .
lch case seems one of the plainest propositions
nat can be stated.
Here, then, we have the supreme court
ivided on this great question, the minor l
by maintaining that the decision OF the
majority virtually snnuls the eleventh
mendment to the federal constitution,
nd comedies to the federal courts, for the
Irst time in the history of the
ation, the power to coerce
state to fulfill its contracts. The
most significant aspect of the matter now
: the way in which the Justices divided.
n the majority were Field, Harlan, Woods, I
Matthews aud Bla clifford. In the minority |
we're Waite, Miller, Bradley and Gray. The
ieath of Justice Woods leaves the mem
'ers now on the bench evenly diviied l
The question is bound to come before the J
court again. Virginia is not likely to fail y
% take Advantage of the situation. When
he question is again decided the decision
will depend on the new justice who is to G
axe the place of Justice Woods. On him
Eill depend whether the doctrine affirmed ,
~ the court in 1885 shall be re-affirmed .,
IT reversed-whether the sovereignty of 1
tate shall be what it formerly was or
THAT it now is under the decision of two
ears ago. S
NUhan thu I.in- nf Rnnn4.,